Children Defining and Experiencing Racism in 21St Century Britain

Children defining and experiencing racism in 21st century Britain

Paper presented at CRONEM conference on Nationalism & National Identities, Multidisciplinary Perspectives

12th – 13th June 2007

Dr Ruth Woods Department of Applied Social Sciences Canterbury Christ Church University [email protected]

Abstract

The controversies of the UK’s latest Celebrity Big Brother in January 2007 have raised questions concerning the extent of racism in contemporary Britain, and also concerning what actually counts as racism (see e.g. Boyle, 2007). This paper considers these questions in the light of interview, ethnographic and questionnaire data collected in 2001 and 2002 from pupils and their parents at Woodwell Green, a large primary school situated in a multicultural area of west London. On the basis of these data, three arguments will be presented, all of which aid our understanding of what racism means to ethnic minority children growing up in Britain in the 21st century. Firstly, it will be shown that while primary school children mainly define racism in terms of name-calling, racism as a mechanism of discrimination was well understood by some older children at the school, and some readily applied it to make sense of events in their own lives. Secondly, it will be argued that the meaning of racism in the UK is shifting from a traditional focus on skin colour (Dennis, 1996; Olweus, 1991) to an expanded conceptualisation including religion. In contrast, children and adults at Woodwell Green were much less convinced that teasing and discrimination based on language differences counted as racism. Finally, the paper will argue that because racism can be based on the separable markers of skin colour and religion, some ethnic minorities in the UK (representing particular skin colour—religion combinations) may be more at risk of becoming victims of racism than others.

Introduction

What is racism? The case of Celebrity Big Brother

Concerns about the prevalence of racism in the UK are common, and often trigger the related issue of what actually counts as racism. An excellent example is the debates following the actions of Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O’Meara towards fellow Celebrity Big Brother contestant Shilpa Shetty in early 2007 (Conlan, 2007). Shilpa was referred to as ‘the Indian’ and ‘Shilpa Poppadom’, she was said to ‘want to be white’, her accent was imitated, and one housemate said that she should ‘fuck off home’, behaviours triggering over 50,000 complaints (a record number) by viewers to Ofcom (the independent regulator and competition authority for UK television) (Conlan, 2007). In the resulting media and political furore, contrasting views were expressed regarding whether these behaviours constituted racism (Boyle, 2007). On the one hand, many of the viewers

1 complaining to Ofcom and Channel 4 saw the behaviours as racist, as did fans of Shetty in India who took to the streets in protest (Gibson, Dodd & Ramesh, 2007). However, others claimed that the behaviours were not in fact racist. For example, Channel 4’s chief executive, Andy Duncan, stated, ‘What constitutes racism is a complex question. We have been monitoring ... events in the house and have reached the view that we cannot with certainty say that the comments directed at Shilpa have been racially motivated or whether they stem from broader cultural and social differences’ (Ramesh, McVeigh & Wray, 2007). Similarly contrasting views appear from some contributors to the popular BBC ‘Have your say’ website, which received over 30 000 comments on this topic (BBC News, 2007). Some contributors saw the behaviours as racist, while others perceived bullying but not racism, or argued that the events had been blown out of proportion. Consider these examples:

‘I was appalled watching Celebrity Big Brother last night. Believe me that will be the last time I watch it. What sort of message are we giving to the young people; is it that bullying and racism can be part of mainstream culture?’

‘This is Big Brother... It is a REALITY show. At the moment it is showing the REALITY that a large proportion of white British society is a bit racist when confronted with someone from a different culture.’

‘Rather than racism, it is plain bullying "Lord of the Flies"-style.’

‘I am British but have a strong local accent, so if someone takes the mickey out of my accent and the way I cook my food, does that count as racial discrimination???? I would imagine not. Racism is starting to get blown way out of proportion.’

What this debate highlights is that the definition of racism is contested in contemporary Britain, with significant potential ramifications for national identity and coherence. This observation provides the starting point for this paper, which draws on ethnographic, interview and questionnaire data to explore how children at a west London multicultural primary school define racism, and the implications for their experiences of racism.

Racism among children

There has been some reluctance to see racism as significant in young children’s lives (Troyna & Hatcher, 1992). Nevertheless, ethnographic and interview-based studies have established that very young children are capable of racist actions and insults. This was true of 8 to 11-year-olds attending three mainly-white primary schools in England (Troyna & Hatcher, 1992), 5 and 6-year-olds at an inner-city multi-ethnic primary school in England (Connolly, 1998) and 3 to 5-year-old American preschoolers (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 1996, 2001).

It has been difficult to gauge the prevalence of racist behaviours among young children, with different studies coming up with wildly contrasting figures (Connolly & Keenan, 2002). Eslea and Mukhtar (2000) found in their survey of Hindu, Indian Muslim and Pakistani children in the UK that racist bullying was widespread. In another small UK study, 80% of Asian children claimed to have been teased about their race or colour, compared with 33% of white children (Boulton, 1995). In a Dutch study, 42% of Turkish, 35% of Moroccan and 34% of Surinamese children reported experiencing racist name- calling in school; over 20% of these ethnic minority groups also reported being socially excluded at school because of their background (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). Meanwhile, in a small study of primary and secondary schools in the Sheffield area of England, 18% of

2 Asian children (and no white children) said that they did not like someone because that person called them racist names (Moran, Smith, Thompson & Whitney, 1993). The percentage of ethnic minority children experiencing racism ranges from 18% to 80% in these studies.

No doubt these discrepancies are due to a variety of factors, including genuine differences in the level of racism among the children questioned, different age ranges of children questioned, variations in question styles, and limitations of survey data (Connolly & Keenan, 2002). Importantly however, discrepancies may also have arisen because of a more fundamental issue, which is the way in which racism is defined—by the researchers carrying out the study, and by the children participating. This paper focuses on two dimensions along which definitions may differ: the kinds of behaviour through which racism is thought to be expressed among children, and the attribute of the person or group upon which the racism is based. Let us consider these in turn.

What kinds of behaviours can we expect to manifest racism among young children? Many studies have used only questions about racist name-calling (e.g. Olweus, 1991; Smith & Shu, 2000; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2000, cited in Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). Others have employed questions embracing behaviours other than name-calling or direct verbal insults. For instance, Eslea and Mukhtar (2000) asked their participants whether they had been racially bullied, while Verkuyten and Thijs (2002) asked children questions about racist name-calling and exclusion. Still other studies have taken a more open-ended approach, acknowledging that racism exists in many forms (including physical assault, name-calling, racist jokes, racist grafitti, ridiculing cultural differences and refusal to cooperate with people of other skin colours or ethnic groups) and seeking to establish which of these forms prevails among children (Connolly & Keenan, 2002; Troyna & Hatcher, 1992). These alternative approaches have tended to concur that name-calling is the major form of racism amongst children (Connolly & Keenan, 2002; Troyna & Hatcher, 1992). However, some other forms have been identified. Around 20% of Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese children in Verkuyten and Thijs’s (2002) large-scale study in the Netherlands reported having been socially excluded at school because of their ethnicity. In Connolly and Keenan’s (2002) smaller study of ethnic minority children and parents in Northern Ireland, 13% claimed to have been physically abused because of their race or ethnicity, and 19% mentioned a range of other forms of racism, including being teased for their accent and witnessing racist grafitti. Thus, asking children only about name-calling may reduce the levels of racism reported, by leaving out children’s experiences of other forms of racism.

Variations exist in researchers’ definitions not only in the kinds of behaviour seen to manifest racism, but also in terms of the attributes which are seen as possible bases for racism. Traditionally, definitions of racism have focused upon skin colour and race. For example, Dennis (1996, p.715) defines racism as ‘the idea that there is a direct correspondence between a group’s values, behaviour and attitudes, and its physical features’ while the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (1995) describes it as ‘a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this’ and ‘antagonism towards, or discrimination against, other races, esp. as a result of this’. Such definitions have influenced research methodology, as in Olweus’s (1991) bullying questionnaire which assesses racist bullying with a single item: ‘I was called nasty names about my colour or race.’ However, not all researchers have defined racism in terms of skin colour or race. Verkuyten and Thijs (2002) asked children the extent to which they experienced teasing, name-calling and exclusion because of their Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan or Surinamese background. Other studies have incorporated even broader conceptions of racism. For

3 example, Easlea and Mukhtar (2000) asked children whether they had been bullied ‘because of your name, your skin colour, the language(s) you speak, the God(s) you believe in, your place of worship, the festivals you celebrate, the food you do or do not eat, the clothes you wear’ (p.211). The children’s answers included references to all of these aspects (Eslea & Mukhtar, 2000). It is likely that higher levels of racism will be found in studies that ask about racism based on skin colour, religion, language and so on, compared with studies focusing only on skin colour. How we define racism has important implications for how much racism we find in our research.

What this brief review of the literature indicates is that researchers have (often implicitly) adopted rather diverse definitions of racism, and this has led to correspondingly different kinds of questions to uncover prevalence. Clearly this is a methodological difficulty which needs to be addressed, because estimates of prevalence need to agree on what exactly they are estimating the prevalence of—name-calling based on skin colour, or exclusion based on language differences? But the issue is not merely methodological. Echoing disputes about racism in Celebrity Big Brother outlined at the start of this paper, the discrepancies found in previous research reflect the controversial nature of the concept of racism itself, with rather different definitions of racism being constructed by different people, in different situations, and for different purposes. How people define racism is thus an important topic in its own right. And this is true not only of researchers’ constructions, but also of children’s. Just as researchers’ definitions influence their findings, so children’s definitions will inform their understanding of the world around them (McKown, 2004). For example, an ethnic minority child who understands racism only as name-calling may experience exclusion from a group of ethnic majority children somewhat differently from one who conceptualises racism in terms of exclusion.

We can begin to gain some insight into children’s definitions of racism through the work of Clark McKown and his colleagues. McKown and Weinstein (2003) found that most of the American children in their study acquired some understanding of racism between the ages of 6 and 10 years, implying that the primary school years may be key in children’s emerging definitions of racism. McKown (2004) found that between the ages of 6 and 10 years, American children’s definitions of racism became increasingly complex and differentiated (although at all ages African American children’s conceptualisations were more sophisticated than those of other ethnic groups). These children were aware that racism can take many forms other than name-calling. Indeed, name-calling does not seem to feature in their definitions, which referred to stereotyping (e.g. ‘The White people don’t think the Black people are smart’), prejudice (‘Whites don’t like Blacks’), rights violations (‘Whites say that Blacks don’t have the right to do things’), exclusion (‘if there’s a new kid and he’s Black, people might not pick him. They’ll pick somebody else’), negative treatment (‘back in the old days when Blacks used to be slaves, the Whites would treat them badly’), violence (‘[Whites] used to take this big water hose and blast [Blacks] with it’) and coercion (‘The English people who first came here…made the Indians leave and just started taking over’). It is probable that name-calling was not mentioned because children were not directly asked for definitions of racism nor for instances from their own lives. Instead, they were told stories about an imaginary land inhabited by ‘the Greens’ and ‘the Blues’, and then asked whether the real world was like this imaginary world in any way. This methodology may also explain why children seemed to focus on racism mainly in terms of relations between people of black and white skin, and often with reference to the past rather than the present.

These findings are important because they show that children’s understanding of racism can go far beyond name-calling. However, the rather indirect questioning approach

4 renders it difficult to draw firm conclusions on how the children conceptualise racism in their everyday lives, and whether they see racism as solely based on skin colour or race. The current study seeks to throw light on these issues by exploring the definitions of racism held by a group of British primary school children, and considering the impact of their definitions on their own experiences of racism.

5 Methodology

The research reported in this paper was conducted from 2001 to 2003 at a primary school in west London named Woodwell Green1. The research, which comprised the author’s PhD, incorporated a range of methodologies including interviews with children, questionnaires with adults, and participant observation in the classrooms, playgrounds and after school club of the school.

Interviews with year 4 children: Fourteen interviews were conducted with pairs of children from one year 4 class. Amongst other topics, the interviewer asked children to define racism and whether racism occurred at their school.

Group interviews with year 5 children: When these same children had moved into year 5, several group interviews were conducted, in order to explore further some of the themes identified in earlier interviews and participant observation.

Questionnaires with adults: An anonymous questionnaire was sent out to approximately 120 parents of Woodwell Green children, asking a range of questions including parents’ experiences of racism in the local area. Thirty-six questionnaires were returned.

Participant observation: The author spent 3 to 4 days each week for one school year (September 2001 to July 2002) in various classrooms, infant and junior playgrounds, canteen and after school club of Woodwell Green Primary School. She spent a subsequent term (September to December 2002) continuing participant observation in the playground and at the after school club. Most time was spent with the year 4 children described above. Throughout this time the author interacted with and observed the children and kept detailed fieldnotes.

Fieldsite

Woodwell Green is a very large primary school situated in a multicultural area of west London. The diversity of the area is reflected in pupils’ religions and ethnicities according to school records. At the time of the research, 27% of the children were Sikh, 26% Muslim, 22% Christian, 13% nonreligious and 11% Hindu (with 2% categorised as ‘other’, ‘unknown’ or ‘refused’). Children of Indian ethnicity make up the biggest proportion of the school (38%), followed by English (25%), then Somali (8%) and Pakistani (8%) children, with the remaining 21% including mixed race, Arab, Afghanistani, Bangladeshi, Black African and White Western European.

Racism was treated very seriously by staff at Woodwell Green, and head teacher Mr Gardner promoted a strong anti-racism line to both staff and children. For example, on a teacher-training day in January 2002, he distributed typed notes that included the following:

Another core value of Woodwell Green is anti-racism. It is a value we must defend vigorously on a day-to-day basis. With this in mind, I was disappointed by the number of children who were reported to me for racist remarks last term. Therefore, I am going to

1 The name of the school, and all names used in this paper, are pseudonyms.

6 make this subject a key theme in assemblies—the message will be strong and uncompromising—there is simply no room for racism at Woodwell Green. I would like all cases of it reported directly to me.2

Mr Gardner spoke on more than one occasion about the seriousness of racism at junior assemblies (for children in years 3 to 6, aged 7 to 11 years). The anti-racist message was also promoted via several anti-racist posters around the school, one of which, featuring three identical-looking brains labelled ‘European’, ‘Asian’ and ‘African’ and a fourth smaller brain labelled ‘racist’, was often commented on by teachers and children.

Children on racism: name-calling or discrimination?

So what do the children themselves make of racism? Twenty-six year 4 children (aged 8 and 9) were interviewed in pairs and asked what they thought the word ‘racism’ meant. Their responses are summarised with examples in table 1, which reveals that a substantial minority of the children understood racism to be negative interpersonal behaviour, but did not include in their definitions any reference to skin colour, religion, country of origin or culture. This suggests that children in this age range are still in the process of constructing precise definitions, perhaps starting out with a broad definition of racism as akin to ‘bullying’, and later elaborating with reference to skin colour, religion, and so on. McKown’s (2004) finding that American children’s understanding of racism expands significantly between the ages of 6 and 10 lends some support to this interpretation.

The eighteen children who did make some reference to religion, skin colour or culture primarily saw racism as taking the form of direct and explicit name-calling and insults, such as swearing at someone’s religion or God(s) or making fun of their skin colour. I also asked these children whether they thought that racism occurred at their school. Of these eighteen children, ten said that racism existed at Woodwell Green. Several gave specific examples, and these too involved the use of racist name-calling. These definitions concur with the examples of racism I witnessed during my fieldwork at Woodwell Green (see table 3). Of thirteen incidents of racist behaviour I witnessed (directly or indirectly), ten of these involved one child insulting or swearing at another. As outlined in the introduction, this focus on name-calling corresponds with previous research in the UK and the Netherlands (Connolly & Keenan, 2002; Troyna & Hatcher, 1992; Verkuyten & Thij, 2002).

Children may define racism in terms of name-calling and direct verbal insults because these are indeed the commonest forms of racism they encounter, but they may also do so because this is how the head teacher defined racism. For example, during a junior assembly Mr Gardner told the children that racism was worse than insults like ‘four eyes’, because it attacks something that is a part of you, and that links you to your family and community. Implicit in the head teacher’s comments in assembly, and in the message he distributed to staff (quoted earlier) is a definition of racism as name-calling. For example, he writes to staff of ‘racist remarks’ and explains to children the seriousness of racism with reference to other name-calling such as ‘four eyes’. It may be that definitions from Mr Gardner and other adults are informing children’s perception of racism as name- calling, such that by year 4, most children define racism in this way.

2 On reflection, Mr Gardner commented to me that he did not think that reporting of racist incidents at Woodwell Green had actually increased over the previous term, but his awareness and concern had increased, partly because of the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11th 2001.

7 Table 1. Year 4 children’s definitions of racism

Racism is… No. of Examples children3 Making fun of 8 ‘Taking the mick out of people’s colour skin, religion, God, or of someone’s religion / their features.’ skin colour / country of ‘If he’s [gestures toward classmate] black and I’m white and I origin / culture say urgh you’re black you’re—you’re—making fun of them because of their colour, or their religion.’ Being rude / insulting 6 ‘When people are being mean saying, oh you’re not born here, about someone’s you’re not allowed in this school, you are racist, you haven’t religion / skin colour / got the same hair colours as us, you’re black and horrible.’ country of origin / ‘When they’re not really nice people and they be rude about culture your religion and the colour of your skin.’ Swearing about / at 4 ‘Like someone’s swearing about your colour of your skin.’ someone’s religion / ‘It’s when people swear about people’s religion’ skin colour / country of origin / culture Bullying / fighting 2 ‘If someone was fighting and they say racist attack, if someone based on someone’s was fighting over religion, cos they don’t like a different religion / skin colour / religion.’ country of origin / culture Negative behaviour, 7 ‘It means rudeness.’ NOT based on religion ‘I think it means somebody being racist like bullying, and racism / skin colour / country is people that are bullies.’ of origin / culture Other definitions 1 ‘When the Afghans hijacked the planes, on the news they said it is racism.’ No definition given 4

However, this is not the end of the story. When these year 4 children had moved into year 5 (ages 9 and 10), I conducted group interviews with some of them. These interviews were not specifically concerned with racism, and yet several children brought up the topic spontaneously. This is interesting in itself, because it suggests that they are using racism as a meaningful concept to make sense of their experiences. However, what is particularly significant about these children’s comments is that they refer to racism which is not name- calling. Here are three extracts from these interviews:

1. Kirendeep, Simran & Sandeep (all Indian Sikh) Kirendeep: Guess who won in Fame Academy?4 David. I wanted Lamar to win. They’re being racist. Sandeep: They’re not being racist!

3 Number of children exceeds 28 because several children gave two definitions, falling into different categories in the table. 4 The interview took place soon after the final of the first series of BBC1’s Fame Academy, a popular voting off talent competition which ran in Autumn 2002. The final of the programme featured the last three contestants, Lamar (who was black), Sionaid and David (who were both white). Lamar was voted off first, then Sionaid, and David Sneddon won the lucrative recording contract.

8 Simran: They are being racist. Sandeep: Why are they racist? Simran: Cos Sionaid and David were the last two. Sandeep: It was a bit racist.

2. Faizel (Pakistani Muslim) Faizel: I think Mrs Sampson’s racist and this other dinner lady, I don’t know her name, Leon’s mum. She always tells me off. Like, Dylan kicked me under the table yeah, I didn’t touch him… he strangles me and pushes me to the wall and all I did was kick him and I got in trouble just because he started crying yeah. RW: Why do you think she’s racist? Faizel: Cos she always takes the other side.

3. Zak (Somali Muslim) Zak: Miss I was playing for Woodwell football club and they’re racist, and there’s one way I know they’re racist. You know Lee yeah/ Faizel: /No she doesn’t know Lee!/ RW: /No I don’t know Lee! Zak: Well Lee yeah, whenever I score he starts to cry. Then Lee’s dad, he’s the manager yeah, he takes me off. RW: Why do you think that’s racist though? Zak: Because he always takes me, Sandeep and Sufyan off yeah, and puts Lee, Alex and Sam on. RW: I didn’t get it, tell me again. Zak: You know the manager, he subs me for Lee, he subs Sandeep for Alex, and he subs Sufyan for Sam. Miss isn’t that racist yeah, he takes us all off and we’re the best players! Just cos his son always cries when I get a goal.

In extract 1, Kirendeep, Simran and Sandeep agree that racism occurred in Fame Academy because out of the one black (Lamar) and two white (Sionaid and David) finalists, Lamar was the first to be voted off. In extract 2, Faizel complained that a dinner lady (who was Asian) was racist, telling off Faizel (Asian) but not Dylan (white). In extract 3, Zak saw his football coach as racist because he substituted two black (Zak and Sufyan) and one Asian (Sandeep) boys for three white boys. These children seem to be spontaneously interpreting situations in which white people succeed over non-white people in such terms. They thus understand racism as not only taking the form of overt name-calling but also as discrimination, which is much more insidious and subtle.5

Two points are of interest here. First, these quite young children seem to have moved from a relatively straightforward definition of racism as name-calling to a more sophisticated conceptualisation whereby members of minority groups are discriminated against, and to

5 In these examples the children do not state explicitly what attribute the discrimination is based on, so one might argue that they are using the word ‘racism’ here to mean ‘discrimination’ generally, without pertaining specifically to skin colour, religion or culture. This seems unlikely for two reasons. First, the examples the children discuss all involve preferential treatment of people with white skins over people of other skin colours. Secondly, all five of these children successfully defined racism in year 4 (more than six months earlier) with reference to skin colour and/or religion.

9 be using that conceptualisation to make sense of events in their own lives. In the case of Faizel and Zak, racism was just one of several forms of discrimination they told me that they were victims of (see Woods, 2005, in press). McKown (2004) suggests that children’s developing understanding of racism contributes to their evolving political consciousness which can help them to negotiate racist incidents in their own lives and inform their participation in society in general. There is a real need for further research here, exploring how and when children come to understand racism in these terms, how widespread such understandings are among children of different ethnic groups, and how their understanding of discrimination informs their experiences of everyday life.

The second point of interest is that the protagonists of these alleged acts of racism are mostly adults—in some cases, adults in the children’s lives. I do not have the data here to address the thorny issue of whether these adults were being racist, though clearly this is a distinct possibility. Racism in this form is much harder to identify and deal with than the far more blatant name-calling variety, which is perhaps why both Woodwell Green and researchers in this area have thus far neglected it. But if such young children are grappling with the sensitive issue of discriminatory racism from adults in their lives, then schools must similarly branch out from their focus on racist name-calling to seriously consider other kinds of racism that children may be concerned with.

Children on racism: Race, religion or language?

In the introduction it was noted that researchers’ definitions differed not only with respect to the kinds of behaviours seen as potentially manifesting racism, but also with respect to the attributes of the victim upon which the racism is based, with traditional definitions focusing upon race or skin colour, while some more recent authors have included other attributes like ethnic background, religion and language. Again, the definitions offered by Woodwell Green children challenge conventional definitions of racism. They are categorised by the attribute of the victim on which the racism is based, in table 2.

Table 2. Year 4 children’s definitions of bases of racism

Victimisation Number of Examples6 based on children Skin colour / 13 ‘If you say to other people, you’re brown. It looks like this, if you see other physical a brown banana, you say ‘You’re like a brown banana’. If there feature was a white person, you could be racist to them as well.’ Religion 13 ‘People taking fun out of people’s colours and religions.’ Place of 4 ‘Like if someone said to me, you’re white, go back to live wherever origin you came from, we don’t want you here.’ Culture 1 ‘Taking the mick out of people’s culture.’ Clothing 1 ‘Some people have those turbans on, people make fun out of their turbans.’ Other 7 ‘Like if they’re being rude to you, like swearing at you and being definition unkind.’ No definition 4 given

6 See also table 1 for more examples.

10 Table 2 reveals that while skin colour and other physical features were important in these children’s conceptualisations of racism, religion was also central. Both skin colour and religion were mentioned by thirteen children—just under half of those asked—with many including both in their definitions. Smaller numbers mentioned place of origin, religious clothing, and culture. These definitions, broader than traditional ones, were also applied in practice. Table 3 summarises all the examples of racism between children I witnessed or heard about during my fieldwork at Woodwell Green, from September 2001 to December 2002. Almost all took place in the school playground, a couple in the canteen or the classroom. I have included the year groups, genders, ethnicities and religions (according to school records) of the children involved wherever possible.

Table 3. Summary of racist incidents witnessed by researcher at Woodwell Green

Alleged Alleged What happened Did I hear Protagonist Victim behaviour described as racist? Sam (yr 4 Mohamed (yr 4 Mohamed and Sam fight. Next day, Mohamed’s mum Yes, by boy, English, boy, Pakistani, tells teacher fight started because Sam called Mohamed’ no religion) Muslim) Mohamed ‘racist names’. s mum Mohamed (yr 4 boy, Pakistani, Dinner lady brings Mohamed and another boy to deputy Yes, by Muslim) and another boy head for calling each other ‘racist names’. SMSA Sam (yr 4 Mohamed (yr 4 Sam and Mohamed argue and chase each other in Yes, by boy, English, boy, Pakistani, canteen. Farah later tells me that Mohamed said Sam Farah no religion) Muslim) was being racist and swearing at his mum. Ali (yr 5 boy, Faizel (yr 5 Ali, Faizel, Mohamed and Zak are waiting outside Yes, by Somali, boy, Pakistani deputy head’s office. I ask Faizel what happened. He Faizel Muslim) Muslim) said ‘Ali was racist to me,’ and called him ‘Afghani’. Idris (yr 4 Pavandeep (yr Idris calls Pavandeep ‘turbanator’.7 Miss Chahal (who is Yes, by boy, Arab, 4 boy, Sikh) shouts, ‘Why are you calling Pavandeep names? classmate Muslim) Afghanistani, My dad wears a turban, have you got a problem with and Miss Sikh) that? That’s racist, what you said. I don’t want to hear Chahal you saying turbanator to anyone again ok?’ Yr 3 Asian Yr 5 black girl Teacher tells people in staffroom that an Asian boy in Yes, by boy her class had called a black girl in year 5 ‘Paki’. teacher Michael (yr 6 Kyra (yr 6 girl, I ask Michael’s teacher why his classmates exclude Yes, by boy, White Black African him, she says Kyra told her that Michael was racist to Kyra and Western heritage, her and called her ‘black shit’. teacher European, Muslim) Christian) Michael (yr 6 Year 6 girl Michael’s teacher tells me that Michael was racist to an Yes, by boy, WWE, (Asian) ‘Asian’ girl in the class. teacher Christian) Emma (yr 6 Mustafa (yr 6 Farah tells me that Emma asked Mustafa to look after Yes, by girl, English, girl, Somali her drink. The drink disappeared, and Emma called Farah no religion) Muslim) Mustafa a ‘bloody Muslim’. ‘Emma was being racist,’ Farah says. Abigail (yr 5 Sarina (yr 5 Sarina and Jaskiran tell me Abigail was racist to them. Yes, by girl, English, girl, Indian, Sarina says Abigail said, ‘All the Indians should go back Sarina no religion) Hindu) & to India’. Jaskiran says she told Abigail, ‘We’re not from Jaskiran (yr 5 there, we’re from here, we’ve always lived here, our girl, Indian, mums and dads are from India,’ and Abigail replied, ‘It Hindu) doesn’t look like you’re from here does it?’ Mohamed Faizel (yr 4 Looking at a photo of Faizel in reception, Mohamed No (yr 4 boy, boy, Pakistani, says to Faizel, ‘That was when I used to kick you, do Pakistani, Muslim) you remember? Because I thought you were a white –’ Muslim) (inaudible). I ask Mohamed what he said, and he says he used to kick Faizel because he didn’t know he was a Muslim. Year 5 boy Mohamed (yr 4 Mohamed tells me that a yr 5 boy ‘swore at my religion No boy, Pakistani, and at my mum and dad.’ I ask why. He says year 5

7 Pavandeep was the only Sikh boy in his class who had long hair, which he wore tied up underneath a small turban. ‘Turbanator’ is a play on the film title ‘Terminator’.

11 Muslim) ‘started beating up my mate yeah, so I told them to stop yeah, and he said F your religion, F your mum and dad.’ Rahul (yr 4 Idris (yr 4 boy, Idris clutches and kicks Rahul. I pull them apart. Idris No boy, Indian, Arab, Muslim) says, ‘He said fuck your God to me!’ Rahul denies it. Hindu) ‘He did!’ exclaims Idris. I ask Rahul why he was angry with Idris, he says he wouldn’t let him take a corner.

The first point to note from table 3 is that overt racism was not common at Woodwell Green. I do not claim to have recorded all instances of racism that took place during my fieldwork, but the fact that I knew of only 13 clear cases suggests that it was not that frequent. The second point of interest is that as noted earlier, most of the incidents involved racist name-calling. The third is that the nine specific insults recorded in table 3 reflect the diversity of year 4 children’s definitions represented in table 2. Three involve ethnicity or family’s country of origin (‘Afghani’, ‘Paki’, ‘All the Indians should go back to India’), two involve skin colour (‘black shit’, ‘white –’), three religion (‘bloody Muslim’, ‘F your religion’, ‘Fuck your God’), and one religious clothing (‘Turbanator’). Previous research in English schools has found a similar range of racist comments, including references to name, skin colour, language, God or Gods, place of worship, religious festivals, food and clothing (Eslea & Mukhtar, 2000).

But why are the children’s definitions and insults not confined to race or skin colour, as traditional definitions are? Again, adults at Woodwell Green may have had a part to play. In a junior assembly, Mr Gardner told the children that racism was when people are horrible to other people because of their religion, the language they speak, or the colour of their skin. Many of the year 4 children are producing similar definitions, incorporating two of their head teacher’s three proffered attributes (we will return shortly to consider why they did not mention language). Their expanded conception of racism may be part of a widespread historical change, as new generations, especially in multicultural areas like Woodwell, make new definitions for racism which respond to the salience of religious difference in general, and Islamophobia in particular, in contemporary Britain. Similarly, Connolly (1998) suggests that in wider society, definitions of racism have shifted from racism ‘directed at people not only because of their skin colour but also because of their nationality, in the case of the Irish, or their religion, in the case of Muslims or Jewish people’ (p.10).

Interestingly, during my participant observation at Woodwell Green, I saw signs that this new expanded definition may lead to some events not previously seen as involving racism being redefined as such in the eyes of a new generation. This was apparent in a year 6 Religious Education lesson, which involved a lengthy discussion between teacher and class about racism, religion and country. Here is an extract from my fieldnotes:

Jaskaran comments that a lot of Sikhs live in Southall. Miss Lock agrees, ‘As Jaskaran said, a lot of Sikhs live in Southall.’ Another boy comments, ‘If people come from India they feel more at home if they come to Southall, cos it’s like India.’ Miss Lock agrees. Then another boy says that he saw on a TV programme that Bradford used to be all white, but when Asian people arrived, the white people started moving out. There is some laughter from the class at this. ‘It’s not a funny issue,’ Miss Lock says. ‘People who live here might decide to move away.’ Jaskaran says of what happened in Bradford, ‘That was racist.’ Miss Lock said that it could be racist. She says that moving away is one thing that can happen. ‘What else can happen?’ she asks, ‘What happened last year?’ One child says, ‘The Bradford riots.’8 There

8 This is a reference to the ‘race riots’ in the northern English towns and cities of Oldham, Burnley, Bradford and Accrington in the spring and summer of 2001. These riots involved clashes between thousands of Asian

12 is a brief debate about whether the riots took place in Bradford or elsewhere. Then Miss Lock continues, ‘All that stems from racism. It’s hoped that you, coming from a multicultural school, growing up with children of different backgrounds, you develop an understanding, and a respect, for different backgrounds.’ She says that racists are ignorant, and mentions a poster of four brains pinned up in one of the school corridors.9 Many of the children make sounds of recognition and approval. Leon calls out, ‘It could’ve happened with Ireland Miss.’ Miss Lock at first denies that this is racism, saying that it’s to do with religion. ‘Racism tends to be related to the colour of skin.’ But then she adds, ‘It is a type—you could say it’s a type of racism.’

In this extract, Leon seems to view the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland as parallel to the hostilities between Asian and white youths in the north of England, in spite of the lack of skin colour or major racial difference in the former case. His teacher seems more ambivalent about seeing the Northern Ireland situation as racism. But if we apply the definitions offered by the year 4 children and the head teacher, then it is quite reasonable to suspect that racism is involved, even though traditionally the conflict has not been framed in those terms.

Recall that the head teacher defined racism with reference to skin colour, religion and language, but that none of the children I interviewed mentioned language in their definitions. There thus seemed less agreement across the school as to whether insults or teasing regarding language constituted racism, and this influenced my decisions regarding what to include in table 3. I included the last three incidents listed in the table even though I did not hear anyone involved use the term racism, because they were all negative acts based on skin colour or religion, and there seemed unanimous agreement at the school (if not beyond) that these constitute racism. In contrast, I did not include several cases in which I witnessed or heard about children mockingly imitating or laughing at children who had ‘an accent’ (usually Indian). Similarly, adults working at Woodwell Green also seemed unsure as to whether language-based insults or teasing constituted racism. For example, a teaching assistant at Woodwell Green described an incident to me in which a boy made fun of a girl’s Indian accent. The teaching assistant saw this act as racist, but told me that when the girl told her teacher no action was taken. Another teacher recounted to me a shared joke that emerged in a class she taught whereby they would add ‘jeet’ (a common ending for Sikh names) to the end of English words; for example, ‘Pass me the scissorsjeet’. Having participated in this class joke for a while, she began to feel uncomfortable about it, wondering if it was racist, and brought an end to it.

Why are adults uncertain about the status of language-based teasing, and why did the year 4 children unanimously fail to incorporate the attribute of language or accent into their definitions of racism? I can suggest two possible explanations. Firstly, at Woodwell Green, language and particularly accent differences often do not map onto the more accepted bases of racism—skin colour, religion and country of origin. For example, in much of the language-based teasing I witnessed at Woodwell Green, children of Indian and Pakistani ethnicities were both perpetrators and victims. Almost all of the children with Indian ethnicity at Woodwell Green were born in the UK and spoke English with a west London accent. Sometimes such children would teasingly imitate the accented English produced by new members of the school who had come more recently from the UK from India or Pakistan. Here is one example from my fieldnotes, taken in a year 4 classroom. Kiran and Simran are both of Indian ethnicity, while Ayesha and Sohaib are of Pakistani ethnicity: All four were born in the UK. Maria, who also had Pakistani ethnicity, had joined the school ten weeks previously, and spoke English with a marked accent. youths, far right wing white youths and riot police. 9 This is the poster mentioned earlier in this paper.

13 Kiran and a few other children complain that Maria (who has beautiful handwriting) is the only child in the class permitted to write in pen. A couple of them comment that she ‘talks funny’. ‘Miss, why are they jealous?’ says Maria to me. Simran says, ‘You’re jealous,’ imitating Maria’s accent, and Ayesha and Sohaib, either side of Simran, laugh. Then Kiran asks me, ‘Miss she’s got an accent, where’s she from?’ ‘Why don’t you ask Maria?’ I reply. ‘Maria, where are you from? Why have you got an accent?’ Kiran asks. ‘I don’t have an accent,’ replies Maria. ‘You do,’ Kiran insists.

Some children of Indian ethnicity imitated an Indian accent not only to tease another child as in this incident, but also in everyday conversations on the playground when no-one with a genuine Indian accent was present. When I asked children why they put on such an accent, they usually just shrugged or said it was ‘Just to have fun’. However, older children explained that the ‘Indian’10 term for having an accent is freshi, which is an insult, implying that one cannot speak English properly (see Woods, 2005, for examples). So these children’s use of an Indian accent as a general source of humour may be connected to their teasing imitations of children who have only recently arrived. It may also be linked with the use of accented English on popular British Asian TV comedies such as Goodness Gracious Me and The Kumars at No. 42.

Whatever its origins, most language-based teasing at Woodwell Green occurred within, rather than across, ethnic groups and skin colours. Similarly, as we saw in the Introduction, several posts on the BBC website following accusations of racism in Celebrity Big Brother noted that accent-based teasing can and does occur between regions of the UK and that this is not normally seen as racist. The lack of congruence between accents on the one hand, and ethnicities, skin colours and religions on the other, means that language-based teasing is not as easily embraced within definitions of racism as religion-based teasing seems to be.

A second possible explanation for why language has not been incorporated into definitions of racism in the way that religion has is that the ability to speak more than one language can be very useful at Woodwell Green, creating opportunities that do not exist for monolinguists (who constituted a minority at the school). In particular, having some knowledge of ‘Indian’ enabled a child to understand and join in playful boisterous exchanges of ‘Indian swear words’ in the playground, to share ‘secret words’, to gossip without non-speakers being able to understand, and (provided that one’s teacher does not understand ‘Indian’) to converse more easily in the classroom (see Woods, 2005, for examples). According to school records, almost half of the children at Woodwell Green spoke Punjabi, Urdu or Hindi and thus had access to these privileges. The advantages and dominance of second language speaking at Woodwell Green may have contributed to its lack of meaningfulness as a source of racism for the children there.

Patterns of racism

So far, this paper has explored the definitions of racism held by children of Woodwell Green. The predominant form that they identify and witness at school is racist name- calling, but some also define racism in terms of discrimination against ethnic minority children. They see racism as typically referring to skin colour or religion, and not language. In the third part of the paper, I turn to consider what the addition of religion as a basis for racist behaviour means for children’s experiences as potential victims of racism.

10 Children at Woodwell Green usually glossed a range of languages, including Hindi, Urdu and particularly Punjabi, as ‘speaking Indian’.

14 Table 3 lists all the racist incidents I knew of at Woodwell Green during my research. Figures 1 and 2 summarise the protagonists and victims of these incidents, by skin colour and religion (according to school records).11 Figure 1 indicates that in the instances of racism I observed, white children are over-represented as protagonists and under- represented as victims, while the converse is true for Asian and black children (although note that not all racism came from white children). Figure 2 shows that Sikh children are under-represented, and nonreligious and Muslim children over-represented as protagonists. Nonreligious, Christian and Sikh children are under-represented and Muslim children heavily over-represented as victims. In this small sample, white, nonreligious, and Muslim children predominated as protagonists, while Asian, black and Muslim children predominated as victims.

Figure 1. Analysis of racist incidents by skin colour % of protagonists 80

s 70 m i t

c 60 i v

/ % of victim s

s 50 t s i

n 40 o g a

t 30 o r p 20 f o

% of pupils

% 10 with this skin 0 colour at White Asian Black Other Woodwell Green skin colour

Figure 2. Analysis of racist incidents by religion

80 % of s 70 protagonists m i t

c 60 i v

s 50 t s i % of victim s n 40 o g a

t 30 o r p 20 f o

% 10 % of pupils with this 0 religion at No religion Christian Sikh Muslim Hindu Woodwell religion Green

11 These figures do not include those children in table 3 whose skin colour or religion I did not know. Therefore figure 1 (skin colour) includes 12 protagonists (2 were unknown) and 14 victims (1 was unknown), while figure 2 (religion) includes 11 protagonists (3 were unknown) and 12 victims (3 were unknown). In figure 1, one victim is recorded as white. This was Faizel, who is in fact Asian but the reason that he was a victim is because the protagonist (Mohamed) believed he was white—see incident 11 in table 3.

15 In order to explore these patterns further, a questionnaire was delivered to 120 parents at Woodwell Green, asking (among other things) their religion and ethnicity, and whether they had experienced racism whilst living in the area. Of the 36 responses received, 2 had to be removed from analysis because they did not answer the racism question, one because s/he did not indicate their ethnicity or religion (all others indicated at least one of the two), and one because s/he did describe an incident of racism, but it concerned members of a different ethnic group from the respondent.

The remaining 32 responses were composed of 8 Muslim parents, 8 Sikh, 7 Christian, 4 Hindu, 1 Buddhist, and 4 who did not state a religion. Twenty-one respondents were Asian, 5 were white, 5 were black, and one gave no indication of skin colour12. Eight of the 32 (25%) said they had experienced racism, and their responses are given in full in table 4. The data were analysed with two two-way contingency tables assessing whether any relationship existed between skin colour or religion of respondent and experiences of racism. For the first contingency table, the variables were religion of parent (with 4 levels: Muslim, Christian, Sikh and Hindu) and experience of racism (with two levels: yes and no). Twenty-seven respondents were entered into the analysis.13 Religion of parent and experience of racism were found to be significantly related (Pearson χ2 (3, N=27) = 8.868, 2-tailed p<.05). Muslim respondents reported racism notably more often than other religions; 5 of 8 Muslim parents reported racism, compared with 1 of 4 Hindus and 1 of 7 Christians.

For the second contingency table, the variables were skin colour of parent (with 3 levels: Asian, white and black) and experience of racism (with two levels: yes and no). Thirty- one respondents were entered into the analysis.14 There was a marginally significant relationship between parent’s skin colour and experience of racism (Pearson χ2 (2, N=31) = 4.836, 2-tailed p=.089). Three of five black respondents reported racism (60%), compared with 5 of 21 Asian respondents (25%) and none of the 5 white respondents15. Moreover, one white Christian respondent expressed their own racist views in the questionnaire, writing, ‘Stop letting all the FUCKING BLACKS IN! PUT THEM IN A BOAT AND BLOW THE FUCKER UP. That will stop all the housing and job problems —don’t you think!’

Sample sizes for these investigations into school- and community-based racism are small and so conclusions must be tentative. Nevertheless, in both cases, Muslim and Black children and their families are over-represented as victims of racism. The prevalence of hostility to Muslims is unsurprisingly in that the Cantle Report (2001), commissioned in response to the ‘race riots’ in the Spring and Summer of 2001, commented that ‘Islamaphobia was also identified as a problem in the areas we visited and for some young people was part of their daily experience’ (p.41). Islamophobia is likely only to have 12 Respondents were asked an open-ended question, ‘What is your ethnic identity and religion?’ Parents categorised as Christian wrote ‘Christian’ or ‘Church of England’. Parents categorised as Asian wrote ‘Asian’, ‘Indian’, ‘Pakistani’, ‘Indo-Caribbean’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Thai’ or ‘Lebanese’. Parents categorised as white wrote ‘English’, ‘White British’ or ‘White’. Parents categorised as black wrote ‘Black British’, ‘Black African’, ‘African’ or ‘Somali’. These categorisations are based upon that used by the school to categorise the children; see Woods (2005). 13 There was only one Buddhist respondent who was therefore removed from analysis. Four respondents did not give a religion. So the sample of 32 was reduced to 27 for this analysis. 14 One respondent did not indicate ethnicity, so the sample of 32 was reduced to 31 for this analysis. 15 In fact, the only white respondent to report racism was excluded from the statistical analysis because they reported racism they had witnessed rather than been targets of, and the victims in this case were Somali Muslims: ‘There are two Somalian families that live across the road from me and the neighbourhood children call them names and throw things i.e.—litter, grass and plastic bottles in their front gardens or an open window’.

16 intensified following the September 11th attacks on the Twin Towers (which occurred in the first week of this research) (Sheridan, 2006; Casciani 2002).

17 Table 4. Experiences of racism reported by parents of Woodwell Green children

Self reported ethnic identity Full description of racism experienced & religion of parent Pakistani Muslim Verbal while walking down the street. African British, Islam A gang of white youth used to come and kick our car and stealing bikes Indian Islam I was physically attacked by throwing stones, empty cans and some other objects onto me. My front room’s window was smashed. Pakistani Muslim Abusive racist remarks shouted from aggressive driver Indo-Caribbean, Hindu Was called ‘Paki’ and a stone thrown at me. Occasionally in the shops the sales clerks will pointedly ignore you or pretend they are otherwise engaged. This could be just ‘poor service’, but sometimes I’m convinced that there is a racist element to such behaviour. Somali Muslim Tara lived on my road her son Jeremy throwed stones at my house. I called the police because this was the fourth time after the police went is came and said “fucking Muslim plus you want to fight come on.’ Black African, Christian One Indian boy refused to tell his name to my daughter in the class, because he is told by his parents not to tell to coloured people. Thai Buddhist I have got my own shop and next to me is take away. We always having problems sometimes youngster just come round and give us big problems and our shop always get some paint and writed everywhere by shop and flat door.

The Cantle Report focused on Pakistani Muslims, and this paper would not question the difficulties faced by this group. Nevertheless, it is notable that at Woodwell Green, racism seems to be directed not only at Muslims but also at black children and families. Therefore those who are both black and Muslim may be particularly vulnerable. Further support for this conclusion comes from the only three occasions during my research when children at Woodwell Green openly expressed negative views of particular ethnic or religious groups to me. Firstly, a year 4 Asian Muslim boy told me that his mum warned him not to play with black children out of school: ‘My mum said I shouldn’t go out with Ali, you know black people, but, I just play with them that’s all.’ When asked why his mum had given him this advice, he explained, ‘Because when they get older they’ll steal things that’s why. She doesn’t like black people.’ Secondly, when asked to choose from a range of photos the child he would least like to be friends with, an Asian Sikh boy in year 3 chose the photo of a black girl, explaining, ‘It’s cos um, it’s cos my dad said yeah, not to talk to, to not to talk to Muslims that’s why.’ ‘Why did he say that?’ I asked, and the boy replied ‘Cos um, cos some of them are terrorists, cos some of them blew up the Twin Towers in America, that’s why I think they’re terrorists.’ Thirdly, when I asked the year 4 children if racism occurred at their school, one Asian Christian girl stated that some Asian children call black children ‘kala’, which is ‘Indian for black’. When she was in year 6, we discussed her comment further and she said, ‘There’s loads [of racism]. It’s cos the religion and you know, with the racism and some dark shade people yeah are Muslims yeah and, the Muslims fight and all that.’ When I asked what she meant, she said, ‘Since that Twin Towers, something weird happened to the Muslims, I don’t know what.’

In the first of these three examples, black children are labelled as potential thieves. In the second and third, both black and Muslim children are viewed negatively, and there is some slippage between the two—the boy in the second example assumes that a girl with

18 black skin is Muslim16, while the girl in the third example comments, ‘some dark shade people yeah are Muslims’. Along with the evidence from parental questionnaires and school-based participant observation, these examples suggest that black Muslim children are particularly likely to be on the receiving end of racism—and not only from their white peers. The majority of Somali families living in Woodwell fell into this category. They are also the most recent immigrant group of a significant size in the area, which may expose them to further difficulties.17

It was been shown that where multiple ethnic groups exist, not all are necessarily racially victimised to the same extent. For example, Turkish children in the Netherlands reported significantly more racist name-calling than did their Moroccan and Surinamese peers (Verkuyten and Thijs, 2002). These authors cite other studies finding that Turks are the least accepted minority group in Dutch society (Hagendoorn, 1995; Verkuyten & Kinket, 2000; cited in Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). Far more research is required in the UK context on this matter, but it may be that because those who are black and Muslim constitute minorities on both of the major bases of racism as defined by the children and adults in this research, they are particularly likely to encounter difficulties in living in Britain. Careful investigations of racism, informed by the various dimensions of difference with respect to which racism is now commonly defined, would help us to better understand the extent to which specific ethnic and religious minorities in the UK are susceptible to racist discrimination and abuse.

Conclusions

Previous researchers have tended to assume that they know what racism among children looks like; a typical definition would be that racism among children takes the form of name-calling on the basis of skin colour or ‘race’ (see Olweus, 1991). This paper has exposed two major limitations of such a definition. First, it neglects a range of other possible racist acts. Racist name-calling does seem to be the predominant form of racism among children (Troyna & Hatcher, 1992), and it dominated in the definitions provided by Woodwell Green year 4 children. However, children do experience other forms of racism too. This may take the form of social exclusion (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002) or physical abuse (Connolly & Keenan, 2002). Intriguingly, some of the 9 and 10-year-olds in this study showed understanding of discriminatory racism, which has not previously been discussed in the children’s racism literature. This is an important discovery because schools may not currently be geared up to handling perceptions and accusations of this type of racism, especially among such young children.

16 Note that the girl was not wearing the hijab in her photograph. 17 In 2002 The Guardian newspaper reported comments made by Piara Khabra, MP for Southall (which was quite near Woodwell Green) on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Khabra said that his Asian constituents had complained that the vast majority of street robberies in the area were being carried out by Somali youths. Abdul Kadir Mohamed, of the Southall Somali Community Group, suggested that the MP’s comments reflected a campaign by the Asian community against the growing Somali population, most of whom arrived in the UK relatively recently (Kelso, 2002). This article suggests local tensions and antagonism towards Somali people living in Southall, and may well also apply to surrounding areas like Woodwell. Note that the findings reported in this paper, whereby black and Muslim children seem to be most prone to racism, may be an artefact of these tensions, rather than a consequence of the increasing significant of religion and particularly Islamophobia in conjunction with ‘traditional’ racism based on skin colour. Further research is necessary to disentangle these two explanations.

19 The second limitation of conventional definitions is that they tend to focus on skin colour or ‘race’. Woodwell Green children’s definitions, in contrast, pay equal attention to religion, as do adults at the school. This is unsurprising in that religious difference has, through the events of recent years, become a highly significant marker of difference and tension in the UK. Interestingly, although some have included insults and teasing based on language or accent in their definitions of racism (e.g. the head teacher of Woodwell Green; Eslea & Mukhtar, 2002), this does not seem to resonate to the same extent. Thus, adults at Woodwell Green seemed unsure about whether language-based teasing and jokes constituted racism, children did not mention language in their definitions, and contributors to the BBC discussion board queried whether teasing someone for their accent was racist. It seems likely that language and accent difference simply do not resonate with larger tensions in the same way that religion does in 21st century Britain.

Both these limitations make it difficult to assess how widespread racism is among children in 21st century Britain. But they also highlight the constructed nature of racism as a concept. The data described in this paper hint at the fascinating possibility that definitions of racism in the UK are being reconstructed by new generations, at least in some parts of the country, with important implications for how children experience, categorise and act in their everyday lives. An excellent example is the year 6 R.E. lesson described earlier where the teacher reluctantly agreed that the Northern Ireland conflict could be seen as ‘a type of racism’. Another example would be how children (and adults) understand (and react to) children teasing Maria, a Pakistani immigrant child, about her accent (as described above) compared to their teasing her about her religious practices or dress.

If the meaning of racism is indeed being redefined by new generations growing up in new circumstances, then we should not expect people (including children) to define it similarly in all places at all times. Definitions of racism may be constructed differently by other children growing up in different times and places. In contemporary Britain, religion has become an important marker of difference, and hence has become incorporated into children’s definitions of racism. In this specific context, accent differences do not resonate to the same extent. However, I surmise that in another place or time (Quebec?), language differences might be much more politically charged such that children growing up in these places would be motivated to incorporate language-based insults or discrimination into their definitions of racism. Further research on the definitions children are constructed for racism around the world would provide greater insight into these possibilities and more generally, a better understanding of children’s experiences of racism.

The third key finding of this paper was that some ethnic minority groups seem to be more prone to racism than others. This conclusion is tentative, being based on quite small sample sizes. Nevertheless, the findings are consistent across different methods of data collection. Specifically, Muslim children and families seemed to experience more racism than those of other religions, and black children and families more than those of other skin colours. This pattern suggests that those who are Muslim and black (and this was usually Somali children and families) may be most at risk. Again, more research exploring the varying experiences of specific ethnic minority groups would be useful.

To conclude, the children of Woodwell Green define racism in terms that both echo previous research (for example, in their mention of skin colour and name-calling) and move into uncharted territory (with discriminatory racism and the inclusion of religion— but not language). Their definitions are important because they impact on and are informed by their experiences of racism in their own lives, and because they offer us as

20 researchers insights into the constructive process by which each of us produces a conceptualisation of what it is to be racist.

21 References

BBC News (2007). Have your say: What do you think of Big Brother ‘racism’ row? Accessed on 8th May 2007 from http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa? threadID=5271&&&edition=2&ttl=20070508115255

Boulton, M.J. (1995). Patterns of bully victim problems in mixed race groups of children. Social Development, 4, 277-293.

Boyle, J. (2007). When does ignorance become racism? BBC News Magazine, 19th January. Accessed on 12th February 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6275363.stm

Cantle, T. (2001). Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team. Home Office Report chaired by Ted Cantle.

Casciani, D. (2002). UK ‘Islamophobia’ rises after 11 September. BBC News Online, 29th August. Accessed on 15th November 2004 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2223301.stm

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (1995) 9th edition. Oxford U.P.

Conlan, T. (2007). Channel 4 braced for Ofcom ruling. Media Guardian, Guardian Unlimited Online, 20th April. Accessed on 8th May 2007 from http://media.guardian.co.uk/bigbrother/story/0,,2061508,00.html

Connolly, P. (1998). Racism, gender identities and young children: Social relations in a multi-ethnic, inner-city primary school. London: Routledge.

Connolly, P. & Keenan, M. (2002). Racist harassment in the white hinterlands: minority ethnic children and parents’ experiences of schooling in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23, 341-355.

Dennis, R.M. (2006). Racism. Pages 715-717 in A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds._, The Social Science Encyclopedia (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

Eslea, M. & Mukhtar, K. (2000). Bullying and racism among Asian schoolchildren in Britain. Educational Research, 42, pp.207-217.

Gibson, O. Dodd, V. & Ramesh, R. (2007). Racism, ratings and reality TV: now Big Brother creates a diplomatic incident. The Guardian, Guardian Unlimited Online, 18th January. Accessed on 8th May from http://media.guardian.co.uk/bigbrother/story/0,,1993129,00.html

Kelso, P. (2002). Somalis to blame for crime rise, says MP. The Guardian, Guardian Unlimited Online, 4th September. Accessed on 10th May 2007 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,785644,00.html

22 McKown, C. (2004). Age and ethnic variation in children’s thinking about the nature of racism. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 597-617.

McKown, C. & Weinstein, R.S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype- consciousness in middle-childhood. Child Development, 74, 498-515.

Moran, S., Smith, P.K., Thompson, D. & Whitney, I. (1983). Ethnic differences in experiences of bullying: Asian and white children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, pp.431-40.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention programme. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ramesh, R., McVeigh, K. & Wray, R. (2007). Channel 4 dodges racism charge as complaints – and ratings – soar. The Guardian, Guardian Unlimited Online, 19th January. Accessed on 8th May 2007 from http://media.guardian.co.uk/bigbrother/story/0,,1994093,00.html

Sheridan, L.P. (2006). Islamophobia pre- and post- September 11th 2001. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 317-336.

Smith, P.K. & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Finding from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 193-212.

Toren, C. (1999). Mind, Materiality and History: Explorations in Fijian Ethnography. London: Routledge.

Troyna, B. & Hatcher, R. (1992). Racism in children’s lives; A Study of Mainly-white primary schools. London: Routledge.

Van Ausdale, D. & Feagin, J.R. (1996). Using racial and ethnic concepts: The critical case of very young children. American Sociological Review, 61, 779-793.

Van Ausdale, D. & Feagin, J.R. (2001). The First R: How Children Learn Race and Racism. Lanam, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Verkuyten, M. & Thijs, J. (2002). Racist victimization among children in The Netherlands: the effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 310- 331.

Woods, J.R. (2005). A study of intersubjectivity in children’s meaning-making at a multicultural London primary school. Unpublished PhD thesis, Brunel University, London.

Woods, R. (in press). When rewards and consequences fail: A case study of a primary school rule breaker. To appear in International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.